Overheating About Global Warming

Decades of climate-change exaggeration in the West have produced frightened children, febrile headlines, and unrealistic political promises. The world needs a cooler approach that addresses climate change smartly without scaring us needlessly and that pays heed to the many other challenges facing the planet.

PRAGUE – Across the rich world, school students have walked out of classrooms and taken to the streets to call for action against climate change. They are inspired by 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who blasts the media and political leaders for ignoring global warming and wants us to “panic.” A global day of action is planned for March 15.

Mar 4, 2019Emmanuel Macron calls on EU citizens to focus on three goals ahead of the critical European Parliament election in May.

Although the students’ passion is admirable, their focus is misguided. This is largely the fault of adults, who must take responsibility for frightening children unnecessarily about climate change. It is little wonder that kids are scared when grown-ups paint such a horrific picture of global warming.

This normalization of extreme language reflects decades of climate-change alarmism. The most famous clip from Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth showed how a 20-foot rise in sea level would flood Florida, New York, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and Shanghai – omitting the fact that this was seven times worse than the worst-case scenario.

A separate report that year described how such alarmism “might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn.’” And in 2007, The Washington Post reported that “for many children and young adults, global warming is the atomic bomb of today.”

When the language stops being scary, it gets ramped up again. British environmental campaigner George Monbiot, for example, has suggested that the term “climate change” is no longer adequate and should be replaced by “catastrophic climate breakdown.”

Subscribe now

For a limited time only, get unlimited access to On Point, The Big Picture, and the PS Archive, plus our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.

SUBSCRIBE

Educational materials often don’t help, either. One officially endorsed geography textbook in the United Kingdom suggests that global warming will be worse than famine, plague, or nuclear war, while Education Scotland has recommendedThe Day After Tomorrow as suitable for climate-change education. This is the film, remember, in which climate change leads to a global freeze and a 50-foot wall of water flooding New York, man-eating wolves escape from the zoo, and – spoiler alert – Queen Elizabeth II’s frozen helicopter falls from the sky.

Reality would sell far fewer newspapers. Yes, global warming is a problem, but it is nowhere near a catastrophe. The IPCC estimates that the total impact of global warming by the 2070s will be equivalent to an average loss of income of 0.2-2% – similar to one recession over the next half-century. The panel also says that climate change will have a “small” economic impact compared to changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance.

And while media showcase the terrifying impacts of every hurricane, the IPCC finds that “globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in [hurricanes] to human influence.” What’s more, the number of hurricanes that make landfall in the United States has decreased, as has the number of strong hurricanes. Adjusted for population and wealth, hurricane costs show “no trend,” according to a new study published in Nature.

Another Nature study shows that although climate change will increase hurricane damage, greater wealth will make us even more resilient. Today, hurricanes cost the world 0.04% of GDP, but in 2100, even with global warming, they will cost half as much, or 0.02% of GDP. And, contrary to breathless media reports, the relative global cost of all extreme weather since 1990 has been declining, not increasing.

Perhaps even more astoundingly, the number of people dying each year from weather-related catastrophes has plummeted 95% over the past century, from almost a half-million to under 20,000 today – while the world’s population has quadrupled.

Meanwhile, decades of fearmongering have gotten us almost nowhere. What they have done is prompt grand political gestures, such as the unrealistic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that almost every country has promised under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In total, these cuts will cost $1-2 trillion per year. But the sum total of all these promises is less than 1% of what is needed, and recent analysis shows that very few countries are actually meeting their commitments.

In this regard, the young protesters have a point: the world is failing to solve climate change. But the policy being pushed – even bigger promises of faster carbon cuts – will also fail, because green energy still isn’t ready. Solar and wind currently provide less than 1% of the world’s energy, and already require subsidies of $129 billion per year. The world must invest more in green-energy research and development eventually to bring the prices of renewables below those of fossil fuels, so that everyone will switch.

And although media reports describe the youth climate protests as “global,” they have taken place almost exclusively in wealthy countries that have overcome more pressing issues of survival. A truly global poll shows that climate change is people’s lowest priority, far behind health, education, and jobs.

In the Western world, decades of climate-change exaggeration have produced frightened children, febrile headlines, and grand political promises that aren’t being delivered. We need a calmer approach that addresses climate change without scaring us needlessly and that pays heed to the many other challenges facing the planet.

And that murderous, self-venerating trillionare Putski is sensational for opinions.

makati1 on Wed, 13th Mar 2019 5:59 pm

The author: Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known media personality who argues that there are more important priorities than reducing emissions to limit global warming.

In a recent controversy centering on him, the Australian government (known for its contradictory position on climate change) offered the University of Western Australia (UWA) $4 million to make Lomborg professor – which UWA first accepted, but then after massive protest from its staff and students refused.

The Australian government was quick to label it a “freedom of speech” issue that Lomborg should get a university position, and vowed to find another university that would host him. However, free speech doesn’t guarantee everyone a university position; there are also academic qualifications required.”

Note the word “opinion”. Nowhere does it state that his “opinion” is based on anything except $$$ for the book he wrote. The West is full of “famous” assholes who know nothing but idiot sheeple hang on their every word. Trump anyone? Go Trump! LMAO

Shortend on Wed, 13th Mar 2019 6:50 pm

Don’t worry we’ll be all dead soon anyway.

Ben on Wed, 13th Mar 2019 7:03 pm

Yes Shortend and then we’ll be reborn.

makati1 on Wed, 13th Mar 2019 7:14 pm

Ben: Reborn? Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause also? LMAO!

Davy on Wed, 13th Mar 2019 8:54 pm

According to NORAD Santa Claus is real. I’ll take NORAD’s word over yours any day makato.

Lomborg’s own country stripped him of all funding due to his self-described “contrarian” viewpoint on global climate change.

Get this, Lomborg argues that Malaria and HIV represent a far greater threat to the survival of humanity than “a bit of warming over a long period of time”.

The present Australian government, esposes a policy similar to that of Trump. After abolishing the Australian Climate Commission for excessive operating costs of $1.5 million, the government attempted to bribe the University of Western Australia with $4 million (hypocrisy); however, after an uproar by the university’s PhD student body, Lomborg was rejected. Existing PhD students in the school are rightfully concerned that Lomborg’s appointment will tarnish their accomplishments as graduates from the university.

Before you begin feeling sorry for Lomborg, he receives plenty of money from “undisclosed sympathetic sources”. This is an attempt to afford him academic bona fides so that his arguments will appear to have more weight. A billionaire “vulture capitalist” and major backer of the US Republican Party is a major funder of Bjørn Lomborg. New York-based hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s charitable foundation through 2016 has given $3.000.000 to Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC), and 73% of this went directly to Lomborg in salary, T&E, and promotion costs for his book.

Got to hand to Lomborg for employing a novel strategy. Given the strength of the evidence, Lomborg is employing a novel strategy. While not claiming the old climate change is a hoax approach, the idea is to refocus attention.

Lomborg is nothing more than a money whore, pure and simple.

This from the student elected President of the Western Australian University Student Union:

“Within the research community, particularly within the economics community, the Bjorn Lomborg enterprise has no academic credibility. It is seen as an outreach activity that is driven by specific set of objectives in terms of bringing particular messages into the public debate and in some cases making relatively extreme positions seem more acceptable in the public debate.”

This statement on behalf of the university’s academic staff:

“We had a look at Lomborg’s claims that the world’s poorest were crying out for more fossil fuels which, Lomborg argued, were the only real way they could drag themselves out of poverty…the positions Lomborg takes on these issues are underpinned by a nasty habit of picking the lowest available estimates of the costs of climate change impacts.

Last year, when Lomborg spoke to a coal company-sponsored event in Brisbane in the shadow of the G20 talks, Lomborg suggested that because the International Energy Agency (IEA) had developed one future scenario that saw growth in the burning of coal in poor countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, that this somehow meant that fossil fuels were just what they needed.

Yet Lomborg ignored an important rejoinder to that assessment, which had come from the IEA itself, and which we pointed out at the time.

The IEA said its assessment for Africa was consistent with global warming of between 3C and 6C for the continent by the end of this century.”

DerHundistLos on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 4:01 am

CORRECTIONS TO ABOVE- sorry:

The present Australian government, esposes a policy similar to that of Trump. After abolishing the Australian Climate Commission for excessive operating costs of $1.5 million, the government attempted to bribe the University of Western Australia with $4 million (hypocrisy)to appoint Lomborg as an adjunct professor; however, after an uproar by the university’s PhD student body, Lomborg was rejected. Existing PhD students in the school are rightfully concerned that Lomborg’s appointment will tarnish their accomplishments as graduates from the university. Why is Lomborg pursuing an academic position? An appointment as a university professor from a strong university would afford him academic bona fides so that his arguments would appear to carry more weight.

Before you begin feeling sorry for Lomborg, he receives plenty of money from “undisclosed sympathetic sources”. For example, a billionaire “vulture capitalist” and major backer of the US Republican Party is a major funder of Bjørn Lomborg. New York-based hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s charitable foundation through 2016 has given $3.000.000 to Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC), and 73% of this went directly to Lomborg in salary, T&E, and promotion costs for his book.

Got to hand to Lomborg for employing a novel strategy. Given the strength of the evidence, Lomborg knows he would be on a fool’s errand. Instead, the strategy is to try and focus the public’s attention onto other issues, thereby preventing meaningful action from being taken on climate change.

Lomborg doesn’t give a shit about malaria, HIV, or the poor. He’s getting well paid by his fossil fuel money masters to stall. Lomborg is the worst kind of money whore.

“Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate “tipping point” as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect.”

Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:46 am

Now that I think about it, the US shale revolution might not be such good news after all.

Not Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 6:00 am

juanp

Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:46 am

Skeptical Skeptic on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 3:09 pm

Heh, Mr. Bjørn Lomborg is just shy of being a full-on denialist. This is the guy that wrote ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ [1] which was roundly shot down for faulty methodology. I’m sure his Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank is continuing to churn out similar rubbish.

F*ck you Syssy faggot. Your Pavolvian dog hate is pathetic. It is Putin and not Putski. Maybe I should call all of you self-anointed masters of human morality Markovka, Johnak, Billob, etc. And if Putin was so corrupt he would have been sucking Uncle Scumbag’s schlong and getting praised in the fake stream western media. That he is demonized proves that he cannot be bought. Poor dear western ubermenschen.

As for murder. Shove it up your ignorant crack, dipwad. Obama was killing 84% innocent bystanders for years with his drone war on “terrorists”. That is thousands of people murdered by an American president. But, that’s OK, because Amerikkkans are super special and exceptional. Just like the morally superior maggots of the Reich.

Not JuanP on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:04 pm

Davy

Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:46 am

JuanP nonsense on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:21 pm

Not JuanP on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:04 pm

Davy

Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:46 am

dissident on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:43 pm

Sorry for losing my shit again everyone. I really should check myself in to a mental institution.

Hello on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:48 pm

>>> Sorry for losing my shit again everyone. I really should check myself in to a mental institution.

Na. Just a few less beers will do. 🙂

Not Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 6:01 pm

dissident on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:43 pm

Not Davy on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 6:02 pm

JuanP nonsense on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 5:21 pm

Theedrich on Thu, 14th Mar 2019 8:10 pm

Given the usual liberal tripe about overheating earth, it might be salutary to present a fact or two about another overheated claim: the holojoke. Here, thus, is one document regarding that topic (unfortunately, the formatting is not perfect, but the facts are clear):

Die Beurkundungszahlen des Sonderstandesamtes laßen keineRückschlüsse auf die tatsächliche Zahl der Toten in denKonzentrationslagern zu.
(The documentation figures of the Special Committee do not warrant
retrospective conclusions about the actual number of deaths in theconcentration camps.)

“The world needs a cooler approach that addresses climate change smartly without scaring us needlessly…”

Oh my, we wouldn’t want to be accused of reporting projections based on data (that might hurt some people’s sensibilities). Oh for goodness sakes, did someone get scared?! Oh for the humanity, the idea that a fellow human being might have been frightened by information (about what we are doing to the planet). Maybe we should just all go extinct while ignoring the data projections so that no one becomes scared. Now, now, you have to understand the last thing anyone ever wanted to do was to scare a fellow human being. What a tragedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The author of this article is dangerously wrong about the threat of climate change and more broadly ecological collapse.

The biosphere only has to become hostile to humanity for it to be the end for humanity. Worse yet the biosphere is made of millions of small ecosystems which become hostile to humans at different rates. We are already losing literal ground and will continue to do so. What is this author thinking?